A Comfortable Car & Cheap To Run

I think the original question got lost here somewhere, but how about a Saab
9-3. Comfy seats. A bit different. Diesel version would be cheap enough to
run. Or its cousin, the Vauxhall Vectra: very quiet and comfortable,
durable. Grey interiors aren't much fun, but it's very cheap and great
value. Or a Seat Leon or (old style) Toledo? A Citroen C5 HDi would also be
comfy and cheap to fuel.

Androo

 

Well it's not like you have to do it on a daily basis or anything !

 

The message <>

Ah - you've not had some of the cars I've had.

 

Nothing fundamentally, but if I can have a 1.6 which doesn't and not
really notice the difference in performance...

And have you seen how much that green VW oil is?

Richard

 

And crap. Handles like a boat, lifeless steering, tacky dashboard..

Just.... not good.

 

You don't own an Alfa Romeo then?

Technically, "before every long journey" but it doesn't state what a long
trip is. Every two hundred and fifty miles perhaps, which for some people
or on some days will be every day. Heh when we run Kermy down Crail Raceway
we cover over 500 miles in the day so should be checking it twice...

 

The older generation machines, maybe. The newer ones are much, much better.

And even then, to be fair to the older generation machine, if you had one
with a good seat it made an excellent long distance cruiser. Just like the
Xantia; a smooth and unruffled ride on the motorway, whilst being lovely and
quiet.

 

I dunno, my last car was a Vectra - 02,reg SRI 130 (1.8).
It didn't handle to well over 80mph, but other than that, the seats
where fully adjustable in every direction, good stereo, v.good brakes.
Plenty of pep in the engine department.
rasonable MPG too, no better than the mk3 golf 2.0 I had before it though.

Couldn't really fault it, other than it was very dark blue and it looked
like a hearse.

Andy

 

In message <rUcoe.824$>

As I said, almost as good as a 407!

 

In message <42a0fb99$0$21771$>

No, not when you could have a 407. Despite my earlier misgivings
about fuel consumption with my HDI 136, today I averaged 52mpg on a
run between the outskirts of Leicester and the outskirts of
Peterborough, a distance of 31 miles. Admittedly there were no hold
ups, and it is all single carriageway A road, with a couple of
villages with 40 limits and 3 stretches with 50 limits. And four
roundabouts where i had to stop. But most of the time I could drive
at a steady 60mph in 6th gear, but went up to 80ish a couple of times
when overtaking (which it is possible to do quite quickly even in 6th
gear).

Even after some town driving in both Peterborough and Leicester, the
return journey returned 45mpg over 91 miles. I think this is pretty
impressive, considering my initial experiences with the car, when I
was averaging about 37mpg.

Part of it might be the loosening up of the engine, but a lot more is
learning how to drive this car. Keeping a steady speed, and avoiding
the use of the brakes (by anticipation) is the key.

Plus of course it is a delightful car to drive. I certainly wouldn't
swap mine for a Vectra or Saab, or perhaps even a BMW.

Martin

 

Heh I'll see t'other post.

 

That's not too bad...

It's probably loosening up the donk. Surely you'd drive any car the same!

I still have misgivings about Citroen and Peugeot longevity. Some models
are superb at high mileage, others just fall apart.

Curiously, if there was just you, doing the same trip in our Ka under the
same circumstances would have yielded a very similar return. He'll exceed
50 mpg on a gentle longer run and it's not difficult to keep the mpg figure
in the very high 40s even when there's town driving.

 

In message <_Lxoe.1653$>

No. If I lifted off the accelerator half a mile before a roundabout
in some cars, such as my old 306, it would have slowed much more
quickly. The combination of a very long legged sixth gear and a very
slippery car through the air makes a big difference.

The secret with the 407 is to be as gentle as you can.

Around town with the 407, I get pretty close to the 37mpg that
Peugeot's figures claim. But to start with i wasn't getting much more
than this on the motorway.

With the Ka, I suggest that flooring the accelerator or using the
brakes a lot won't affect consumption as much as it does with the 407.

 

That's because of a number of factors, such as emission control and tall
gearing. On many modern engines (diesel or petrol) when you lift off it
doesn't necessarily mean that the ECU has stopped squirting fuel into the
engine.

It does, but the mass of the vehicle is also very important. Heavier cars
coast for longer.

That's not really a secret, though, and it's common to almost all cars.

Aye it was brand new and needed running in. Over the next 40,000 miles it
will get better and better. You have this to look forward to!

No it won't, for a number of reasons (such as the maximum amount of power
produced by the engine being of course related to the amount of fuel burnt).
But changes in speed are bad for fuel consumption no matter what vehicle.

Using the air conditioning makes a much more significant difference.

 

Ah, you used to have a 306.

The 407 is less slippery than the 406, which is less slippery than the 306

Yes, and the 407 could weigh 50% more than the 306.

 

Streltsky () gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

The 1.9D/1.9TD engine in the Xant is basically the same lump as your 205,
and lasts very well indeed. Brakes are, unlike your 205, far less likely to
need work beyond the usual disks and pads, as they use the same non-
hygroscopic fluid (LHM) as the suspension, so the wheel cylinders don't
rust out due to poor maintenance. If the fluid's replaced every couple of
years (quick and simple), and the spheres are replaced or recharged every
3-4 years (less than £20 each, and not difficult to change), the suspension
will go on virtually for ever - unless some muppet's put brake fluid in.

 

If used. I've had two 'low mileage' units suffer head gasket failure (ZX
and Xantia) and heard of several others. Doesn't seem to happen if the
cars are used regularly. Exacerbated on the non-turbo ZX at least by a
cooling system that is a total and utter bitch to refill.

Richard

 

Or the rear height adjuster seizes.

 

in "DervMan"

Except it isn't really true. You need to compromise between distance
travelled in low gears and extra fuel used to accellerate more quickly.

In the extreme case, you could drive sufficiently gently that you never got
out of 1st gear and you would have terrible economy.

To get the best economy you should accelerate 'briskly' up to your cruising
speed - for most NA petrol engines, 'briskly' would be between 60-80% of
maximum*, using a rev-band either side of the torque peak _at that throttle
opening_, which will be somewhat lower in the rev-range than the torque
peak at maximum throttle.

With turbo engines, it's all quite a lot more complicated



*i.e. as much throttle as possible whilst keeping to the region where the
fuel:air mixture is stoicometric (i.e. not close to WOT) and the various
air-flow restrictions don't have a major impact.

 

The message <[email protected]>

That's not gentle, that's slow. There's a world of difference.